March 21, 2006

French Democracy

In my elevator talk, I purposely avoided the "mixed economies" of Europe. These economies, and increasingly Canada and the United States, do not disprove my claims about the efficacy of classical liberalism.

Michael Barone points out in "Hard America, Soft America" that the softer (more Marxlike) side of the US economy relies on the prosperity of Hard America to keep it afloat. Western Europe built prosperity through freedom, innovation, and a work ethic that valued achievement. The mixed economies are consuming those gains at different rates in different countries.

France makes the news today with riots as a response to allow more liberalism in hiring and firing of young workers. Three points can be taken away:

1) The ability of an entitled class to politically protect itself should never be underestimated;

2) The US with a more liberal economy, has the best job market for college grads in five years, while the French have double-digit unemployment;

3) The Wall Street Journal points out the lack of enlightenment in the cradle of enlightenment. There is no voter recourse there as we know it. Politics is settled in the street (Robespierre would be proud). With strikes and marches instead of ballots and campaigns. I now read that there is a counter-protest. I agree with the counter, but question the tactics. I also think about Jose Bove, the folk hero who trashes the French McDonalds franchises. Nobody elected him, yet he tells his countrymen what to eat.

The mixed economies assume that the healthy, Mises-Hayekian economies can tolerate a little Marxism. For a time they can. I grew up hearing how swell Sweden was. Then France. And, for a generation or two, they are pretty swell places to call home -- not that either has the economy to welcome a skilled immigrant. But a friend who sold into those markets reminds me that life is pretty good for the ones who are there and have a position.

I prove my point by claiming that the more Marxism shown by a mixed economy, the worse shape it is in; the more Hayek, the better the economy. A trend here?

Elevator Talk Posted by jk at March 21, 2006 3:19 PM

I suppose, if you go all the way to Marxism where everyone has a distasetful job ... it's not too bad. Of course spending my days scrubbing out a nuclear reactor chamber would certainly suck, but I would have a job, yes? Support that with a touch of Commercialism (selling nuclear fuel rods to other countries), then you have the cash flow to keep everyone happy with a loaf of bread every week.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at March 22, 2006 10:15 AM

History seems to have proven the opposite. Even in your scenario, you include some free-market exchange of arms and fissile material to prop it up.

My friend's point is that Norway, Sweden, or France has enough wealth from its old days and current economic activity to provide a very good lifestyle to those who already have a good job.

I decry sclerotic European socialism and, though he is sympathetic to my ideas, he reminds me that these countries have millions of happy people who are les productive than their American counterparts but don't mind a bit.

My next elevator talk will address sustainability; this is where these economies fail.

Posted by: jk at March 22, 2006 10:38 AM

I'm going to have to work on my sarcasm. There has yet to be a (pure) socialst government that has actually stood the test of time. Once Castro dies and the borders open up, many of the intellecual/academia supporters here will have to remove that massive splinter from their eye.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at March 23, 2006 11:04 AM

Sarcasm noted mdmh, but it's critical to remember that in a Marxist system not EVERYONE has a distasteful job. Somebody gets to be the beer taster, or the movie director, or the president of the bank. And someone else gets to be the person who decides who gets these other jobs.

Posted by: johngalt at March 23, 2006 3:40 PM

Look to the 24th Century.

There's no money in the world of Star Trek (see Movie #4), yet someone is the Captain, someone is the red shirt. Someone has to mine dilithium. Toilets probably still break. How do they decide?

It's obviously by potential. Not ability. But yes, you're right JK, "someone else" gets to decide who has potential.

Posted by: AlexC at March 23, 2006 10:16 PM | What do you think? [5]